YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#621

Post by otakucode » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #339

slivym wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it. To me there are two models: - You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site. - You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the cont…

What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values. This could end up being a maximizing rule for rev…

Uncertain about Reddit, but Google/Alphabet morals were pretty well laid out in Eric Schmidt's book "A New Digital Age" where he details how because he is rich, it is his duty to determine the morality of society. It's a very old-school viewpoint that's common amongst 'old money' types that see the general public as rabble to be yolked and who must be protected from their own self-destructive natures. It's the mindset that backed kings and queens for thousands of years and got a swift kicking in the late 1700s on the global stage. But it seems to be making a comeback, albeit a pretty small one so far. This is actual Conservative mindset, where the rights of the individual are a distant second to the rights of the 'greater' structure being served, whether that be a nation, religion, or whatever. Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#622

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #620

splintercell wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this: > The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . So according to you, if the 'security…

The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#623

Post by otakucode » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 7:54 PM UTC

this_user wrote: post #369

slivym wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it. To me there are two models: - You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site. - You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the cont…

The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising. Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make…

That was the excuse YouTube used. It was a lie. A plain fabrication. We know this because Alphabet released their earnings and made crystal clear that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred at all. There was no dip in advertising revenue. In fact, it has only increased. Their motive is not driven by skittish advertisers.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#624

Post by Tiksi » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

birksherty wrote: post #174

lettergram wrote: post #120

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of t…

General population don't practice ramming car into crowd. Those are not hobbies. So, when mentally ill people want to cause harm they don't use those methods. It does not normally comes to mind. But, shooting is common. It's a hobby. A killing machine is normalized and it becomes a culture. So, those mentally ill men feels completely normal to shoot people when they go crazy. Consider this: ramming car into objects b…

>Consider this: ramming car into objects becomes a hobby and people starts to do that and take pride in it. They practice it every week.

So, demolition derbys? Is there a higher rate of murder by car among people that participate in them?

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#625

Post by ehmu » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

splintercell wrote: post #612

yequalsx wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the…

> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this: > The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . So according to you, if the 'security…

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They left out part of it

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#626

Post by zrobotics » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

mrlala wrote: post #449

simias wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from You…

>This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs But that's also in the best interested of everyone. Instead of youtube, we should visit 10 different video sites? Instead of reddit, we should visit 10 different global info sources that now have 10x less content, and spend even more time finding what's relevant? Instead of twitch, we should visit 10 different sites to wa…

On the contrary, centralization can actually reduce the amount of content, at least for certain types. For instance, nearly any automobile will have a dedicated forum, and often these forums will provide some of the most helpful information, simply because they concentrate people around a specific subject. Whereas asking a question in one of the general automotive subreddits will typically yield poorer quality answers or will simply be lost in the noise. Thankfully reddit somewhat solved this problem w/ subreddits, since it's pretty common knowledge that the default subs are complete garbage, but youtube hasn't really done much about this. Sure, if someone made a video for your exact probem it is nice, but for finding specific information youtube is pretty poor.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#627

Post by CompanionCuuube » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #484

purple-again wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families. Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.

It isn't clear who you're threatening to shoot. All you've said is "There is an organized group of citizens ready to carry out extrajudicial killings if gun laws change." To the rest of us, that sounds like the violence threatened by a terrorist group--and maybe you shoot policemen, maybe you shoot your neighbors, I dunno, I'm not the one talking about keeping my guns around to be able to shoot my fellow citizens.

No, you pawn it off on the police and military to do the dirty work for you.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#628

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

splintercell wrote: post #613

yequalsx wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices said there was no such right enshrined in the 2nd amendment. Thus there are people who are learned in the law who disagree with your position. Is it really hard for you to imagine that well educated, knowledgeable people can come to a different conclusion than you on what the 2nd amendment means? I’m claim neither to be well educated or knowledgeable. I do claim t…

> I’m claim neither to be well educated or knowledgeable. I do claim that when I read that amendment it seems to give the government broad powers of regulation over gun ownership. I highly recommend that you either stop holding these ill-informed opinions by your own admission or stop prefixing your every post with the same disclaimer.

I doubt that you are an expert on all topics you post about. I'm actually well educated. So now I am claiming this. Mostly in mathematics, physics, logic, and history. I'm not an expert in any area outside of mathematics.

However, just like you, my lack of expertise does not preclude me from having an opinion and stating those opinions. Since there are experts who agree with me that the 2nd amendment gives the government powers of regulation it's hard to credibly claim that my position is ill informed. Even if my reasons are ill-informed why should I stop from engaging in conversation? That's the best way to learn.

I've not denigrated anyone or suggested that anyone was ill-informed or otherwise try to diminish those who disagree with me. I'm not so full of myself that the act of dissent from my position causes me to lash out or attempt to quash said dissent. In fact the contrary is true. Several times in these threads I've said to those with whom I disagree that they should fight for their rights and remain vigilant.

Stand up for your beliefs. I will stand up for mine. I hope someday that gun ownership will be viewed with horror by the general populace. My position will not win out if well reasoned individuals who disagree with me remain vigilant and proactive.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#629

Post by webbles » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #328

gtlondon wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of…

Notice how you didn't mention the neo-nazis, general racists, and harassing scumbags.

Shows how big of a piece of shit you are.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#630

Post by zrobotics » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #596

talmand wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because such decisions are often based on emotion and not logic.

Emotion is as much a part of the human decision-making process as logic, and it's sociopathic to act as though logic is the only part that matters. My favorite for-example: one of those old great libertarian thinkers applied libertarian principles to the parent-child relationship and decided that a law that compels a parent to feed a child is an immoral law; parents should be free to let their children starve to deat…

While a valid point, there are times when we need to recognize that emotional reactions are best ignored. If I get cut off in traffic, the initial emotional response might be to ram the other person's vehicle or some other violent act. While anger is perfectly valid, in this situation it would be best avoided. I mean, the recent focus on violent video games is an entirely emotional reaction, but at this point there's been enough studies conducted that we can safely conclude that no, playing violent games doesn't contribute to real world violence, so we should let logic inform our emotional reactions.